republican and i think this is the bill that will spur economic growth, give people more opportunity, make the economy stronger. there's a downside that all pay fines andill the government will get all the money and do something terrible with it. i understand that others -- [indiscernible] there are fees involved. not exactly amnesty. you wonder why they keep saying it for shock value. it just is not true. you cannot hit people with fees and fines and all sorts of hopes to run through an act like you have not done anything. when we had the 55 m.p.h. speed limit, there was a lot of illegal driving going on. we did not decide to enforce that law, we decided to come up

with reasonable speed limits and then enforce that law. we gave amnesty to all the people that had been illegally driving. get the back taxes. let's get to get them in the light of day so they are e andcted from abus an exploitation. we have high tech workers that don't come here but go to other countries and compete with us. we need people from ranchers to derek to farmers. i don't think this bill goes far enough. i would like to see more, but this is progress. >> your statement mentions several examples of how terrorist disadvantage of our system. even mention how awesome

terrorists have applied and received asylum. you mentioned the bill would allow people will have filed a frivolous asylum applications benefits under the legalization system. do you know how many people fall into that category and how does the bill before us make the current system weaker? >> i do outlined in my written testimony a number of pages of terrorists who have taken advantage of asylum. we have most notably the case just a few weeks ago of the syrian national who had been years since 9/11 who was known to help and support materially the 9/11 hijackers who was also affiliated deeply with our anwar al-aulaqi. his asylum and three times before the judge. a federal law enforcement officers tried to reopen the case and the judge considered its final. -- it final.

i don't see the bill changing it very much and helping the system that's in place right now, make it more secure. it's does not there, senator. thanks very much. thank you to all of you. , want to start with you, mayor as you are focusing on economics of the bill, which i don't think people appreciate. what you see as the three biggest benefits of this bill, economically? >> the first thing with all the talk about is we need the work force. even if we hired all americans, we would still be short of the workforce. i also think that immigrants tend to bring with them new ideas, new entrepreneurialism. 60% of small businesses in colorado right now are hispanic-

owned businesses and the majority of those are immigrants. if we talk about businesses -- small-business in job creators, this will create jobs. in addition, we will have new consumers. we will have folks who can apply for home mortgages, purchase cars, and do the kinds of things that our business growth in our country. so i think there are many benefits to that. in addition, the tax revenue. as a mayor of a large city, we are always short on governmental services. i think this will help to fund those services and help us strengthen our government. that, our state is a per-capita for fortune 500 companies. fortune five companies, 90 of them are headed by immigrants. i reinforce your view not only with small businesses but big another double

that our kids of immigrants. people need to understand this is more than just about legalizing people. it is the jobs that will create in our country. the visas for foreign entrepreneurs. foreign entrepreneurs can invest in companies here in the united states. i think we should welcome that. >> mr. norquist, welcome, i was teasing you outside that we welcome for your bipartisan debut but he quickly corrected me that you in fact have testified before on the penalties of crack cocaine and that was a bipartisan effort. >> unanimous in the house. >> thank you, this is what happens when you get involved a bipartisan effort. i want to ask you about the h1b cap. how do you see it improved the

employment-based immigration generally? we want to focus on american companies growing jobs here and how you see that increasing? >> we need to increase the h1b cap. it is not high enough. within days, it was reached and there is an awful lot of talent from the world that american firms would like to hire and bring your to work to create additional jobs from silicon valley to across the country in all 50 states. these are people who come and create other jobs. for themselves and other people and it's a number that should be higher and it has increased in this legislation and it is a very important step. i think it should be increased more than in this legislation. this is a real opportunity. it allows people to come here to create jobs. barbur right, hard working, they will be working somewhere else. -- these people are bright. a number of people and brought

them up to canada because they have a lot better able to bring them. be in don't want to canada. >> i can see canada from my porch. >> this is an opportunity for people to come to the united states and work here. raising that visa is an important part of why this is a pro-growth policy. >> very good, i noticed in your testimony -- then ends with a reagan'sm president inauguration. it was about opening the doors with the will and hard to get here. at this quote is a good reminder that we have to keep working on this bill. i wondered if you want to, and what that quote was meaningful to you in this context? >> the regular republican position has always been immigrant welcoming and you see

this memo coming stronger both in the business community and the religious community. i was in a meeting with the head of the republican national committee and 10 major trade associations and i was there as the taxpayer god and the way around the table and asked what was important. made many suggestions that went back and forth. at the end, the rnc chair got up to leave and the gentleman from the chamber said, there is this other thing. we never mentioned it before. what is it? > we are runnin out of workers and we need emigration reforms. everybody around that table from the truckers to the restaurant doors to the retail people all

said that as a bigger issue for us. than the stuff we talked about. the business community did not talk about it for years. they are now talking about again and focused on the importance of reforming h1b vises and guest worker programs which are steps in the right direction, a barrel -- very helpful to the economy. this is real stimulus. this would be the best thing the senate and house and the president could do for the economy and deficit-reduction and it should be high priority. >> thank you very much. i appreciate my friend, senator sessions, letting me go next. involved withre the 9/11 commission? >> yes, sir. >> i seem to recall that at least six of the 9/11 hijackers came into the country legally

but overstayed their visas. they're part of the 40% today roughly of illegal immigration that occurs when people come in legally but overstay. was that a major concern of the 9/11 commission? >> actually, in my findings, most of the hijackers worked extremely hard to stay within their legal admission timeframe. you had the pilots going in and out many times but the muscle or april andkers came in may and june of 2001 to stay within the six month time frame that they had. there was only one that came in that he was given a business visa of two weeks and he was an overstay. the overstay issue like the land borders were not a big issue for the 9/11 commission because they did not become part of the story. when they became part of the story is when we insisted on

looking at a pattern of activity of terrorist and how they abuse the immigration system. as we started looking into it and realize there is a pattern of terrorist travel, we looked beyond that. our executive director gives the bullets to do that and that police saw the other issues evolving. i did a major report subsequently on 94 terrorists and how they managed to embed an assemblage in this country and the visa overstay was a large part of it. sorry for the long answer. you know there, is a lot of skepticism about the federal government in general and congress in particular that congress approval rating hovers around 11%, maybe 15%. it seems to be the last thing we would want to do is to confirm that lack of confidence that many of the american people have about congress and promise

something that we're not going to deliver. i'm concerned particularly about border security elements and the visa stay relevant. with 40% of illegal immigration occurring because of people entered legally and since we don't keep track of them -- i am concerned about the lack of an exit programs at the land based borders particularly in my straight, 12 of the miles of common border with mexico. thatou concerned at all the border security component of this about the credibility of it, which only provides three out of southern border sectors will require the 90% effectiveness rate and terms of apprehension, when in fact we know that as you tighten the border in one place, the human smugglers, drug dealers and others come to other less-guarded places.

is that an important issue? >> border security is important to the country and this bill. the way in the past we have dealt with border security issues, we used to have over 800,000 people apprehended at the border with mexico and then we had a guest worker program put in by eisenhower and that it went down to 45,000. as long as the guest worker program was there, people crossed legally, not illegally. the most important thing you can do to reduce illegal entry is to have a serious grown up robust guest worker program and the way for people to get here legally to do work that needs to be done with willing employers and workers. then you only have to worry at the border about bad guys. >> i agree with that last comment. i agree head people will become your work that having a legal system for them to do so is important.

i don't think that will deter the drug traffickers and human traffickers and other people who dealing contraband. >> it frees up the officers at the border to focus on bad guys instead of trying to go after people coming here to work. they would have a legal way to come here and work. that is what happened when eisenhower did it. eisenhower had a big success there. when the federal government does something well, it is kind of rare. >> it is good to see you again. i have a question about the provision of legislation. i'm not sure how many of you have had a chance to read all hundred -- all 844 pages but it provides that people who have been found -- who have been convicted of multiple domestic violence, offenses, drug driving offenses, and child abuse offenses, that they could take advantage of this legalization

pathway. would you be concerned about where that line is drawn in terms of whether that should be available to those folks? >> yes, senator, absolutely. one of the concerns we have had theit took away from responsibilities to protect the public from other types of criminals. i am concerned about that. i think that needs to be looked at the end result. we will give this opportunity to the law-abiding members of our community. >> thank you for your kind comments about the people of west, texas. i think the president will be of then thursday as part memorial service for the first responders. thank you for your kind comments. >> thank you, senator schumer. thank you all on this panel, it has been very thoughtful and very worthwhile paddle. the formern work

attorney general, now senator cornyn began by asking you, mr. norquist, your profound point is that in enforcing a broken system, a bad law or set of laws in the sense that it is irrational and arbitrary is very difficult to do effectively. and forcing a bad lot is very difficult for law enforcement to do. absolutely, the example that people can remember because most of his adult coming in touch which broke runs day-to-day but what we were doing illegal driving, there is a 55-per mile our speed lead. we realized that needed to be reformed. we reform that law and then enforce it.

we are not allowed in many of the best and brightest to start companies somewhere else and 45% of the ceo's were born elsewhere or the children of those, do you what those in other countries? why not here? this is a jobs program about economic growth. misunderstand that and don't see it and they need to focus on the fact that this is how our country grew. the idea that more people megaspore is nonsense. we used to have 3 million people have lived on farms. we now have 300 million people, not 100 times poor. people in a free society increases well because people

are an asset. when you hear we've got people in north dakota, we say good. more people are an asset in a free society and we can afford to be choosy on how we have yet. so many people would like to live here. >> i appreciate that point. contributions, especially among the hire skilled people are one of the reasons i am supporting the i squared legislation and that my colleagues have taken the lead on. >> it is our import legislation. >> i am proud to support it and proud to welcome my former andeague mark shirtleff bank you for your excellent testimony here today as well as your terrific work as a law enforcer.

i don't know whether you were here for the testimony provided on the prior paddle about the supposed impossibility of these background checks. i wonder if you have an opinion on that point. this should >> we gave them and of racism -- we gave them an authorization to drive. their insurance would cover at where there were and it was pragmatic. same thing with the state tuition in utah. i thought of fifth grade class is how to stay away fromgays.

the latins are telling them you could never succeed regard to college and will be able to work, and joined the gang. i tell the kids to stay away from gangs. in utah, you can pay state tuition -- anybody. these are practical solutions. >> i want to thank you particularly for be near. you have a long career of public service. i think you have does -- does a great service by sharing with us. i think it makes a point that we too often overlook which is that people want to come to america are often among the best and brightest everywhere in the

world. they choose to come here because they want that opportunity. i was discouraged last week of because of the violence and i went to a naturalization ceremony. they are just enormously inspiring and uplifting. as you know, people come with tears in their eyes, their families, their friends -- is a tremendous celebration. it is what the high points of their life and your story about your parents sending you to this country involving huge sacrifice on their part but no -- but now will it would be great for you as an opportunity is very inspiring and want to thank you for being here today.

and for making that point. >> if i may just respond for a second -- i know we hear today a lot of bad things about immigrants but the overwhelming majority of them bring with them and iron will to succeed -- a tireless, steady work ethic -- a tremendous gratitude for being given a second chance at a new country and that always, always triggers in them a tremendous desire to contribute to this country. i think we have seen that time and again through this generation. >> and they appreciate citizenship in a way that americans do not. thank you. >> senator sessions -- thank you for your leadership. represents 7000 emigration customs enforcement agents and as a former marine and you could tell he has the courage of his convictions.

there was a lawsuit in federal court to allow them to follow the requirements of law. i think her criticisms of the president and your criticisms of this process -- your repeated requests tto participate in thee discussions, advise and give your opinion and how to craft a system that would actually work. were denied that and i thank you for your speaking out. i think it is very much importance. we certainly have the pro- immigrant group really actively pushing.

with regard to legal immigrants that have low education that are legal -- do we have data that shows how they compare to the same amount of people in the country who are american citizens with the same educational level? >> what are the implications of that. >> they have high rates of work but also high rates of welfare use. as a general proposition, the last educated immigrants or

native does not come close to paying what they use and services. the heritage foundation looked at immigrant and native households estimated about $20,000 per year and that was several years ago. - difference between them can see the same phenomenon here. i have the statistics for less educated natives and some ways the in a grizzly course but the important point is that both less-educated populations have this negative fiscal impact. i don't think we should see this theome kind of moral defect way to see it as reflecting the realities of the u.s. economy which is not offer much of opportunities to people with less education including american citizens and the existence of a well developed program. >> it kids in high school don't get a high-school diploma and tried to go on further, they

have a hard time getting a good paying job in america. shouldn't we therefore, when we think to accept people illegally into the country, should seek those who have educational levels that will allow them to the most successful? >> exactly, about 40% of all the high school dropout to the united states today are foreign- born and about half our legal and have illegal. tell me about social security and medicare? how will this law, if passed, impact the viability of those programs? social security now has a $7 trillion unfunded liability debt out there over the next 75 years. what would this do to it? >> sells a security is partly redistributive. allowing bill does by the illegal immigrants to stay

and get legal status is it adds lots of new claimants on social security who are low income. their wages that would rise with little education but does not change the underlying educational attainment of the immigrants and that is why it creates negative long-term implications for social security and medicare because you have lots of low income people to that system. you cannot fund the welfare state and you cannot find social services low income folks. it is just that simple. it doesn't make them bad or evil or and does not mean they don't work. they did not all come to get welfare but the reality is what is on this charge. there are high use rates from the low educated and low tax contributions. thatguess we would say there are possibilities for us to reach some agreement on hire skilled entrance and the

immigrants but this bill does not make sufficient changes in that regard. much.nk you very i want to thank the witnesses for coming in. i especially want to thank and welcome my friend mark

i can look to reform something but to reform it and make it better, we have to understand what it is that is lacking. i have some questions i would like to ask about this. enactment of of this law, until the end of the rpi period, this bill would seem

to prevent anyone from being detained or deported even if apprehended. eligibleas they appear for rpi state is. is that your understanding? >> absolutely. >> is it also your understanding that the rpi period as you factor in the discretionary period well taken up to 3.5 years? >> i saw it as three years but it could be 3.5 years. testified before this committee that the work of ice agents has been hampered with a similar prohibition on pursuing cases against those who merely claiming eligibility they have nothing other than their own work at the moment. -- of a word at the madrid wants an alien says they qualify for daca ice agents can process

them. is this same approach is used by an illegal alien who has entered after the enactment of this law, assuming it is enacted, will this 3.5- year period amount to a defacto holiday during which ice not be able to apprehend anyone wants they claim to be eligible for rpi status? and my understanding that correctly?

am i understanding that correctly? or am i missing something? >> you nailed it. we feel that the people on the border will be included in that group as well. >> the legislation says that anyone in this gateog -- category -- do we know what that opportunity consists of? >> i do not. >> can you tell me, based on your experience, you come with this unique background that allows you to forecast where the problems might be. what ways can you tell me that this bill, the one we are now considering, will tend to improve or enhance your ability to enforce the laws? >> it is real difficult for us to say at this point because we are like everybody else. we are struggling to read through this monster and reference back and forth. to be quite honest with you, i know there are some improvements in here, but i have not seen a lot of them. i am confused by some of these things with regards to three misdemeanors and the standards, the crimes involving purple to did we have now.

-- involving moral turpitude. within five years. how does that make sense with these three misdemeanors? what are significant misdemeanors? this is not a legal term we are significant -- we are familiar with. it is something we struggle with already. this makes a lot more questions than i think it provides answers. of it will take a lot digging through this. withe seen some things regard to getting affiliation. gang affiliation. the general concept, we arebut a finer stand correctly, it says things like if the person says i am no longer a part of the gained comment -- again, -- no longer part of a gang they get to have this probationary. i find that highly problematic. people under 18 years of think -- of age could possibly continue to be a gang member.

it's very confusing. the dui thing is something we have been asking for for a long time, to give someone three dui convictions, if i understand that correctly, i find that problematic. drivinge folks who are one ton of metal down the highway at high speeds. they are dangerous. it is happening a lot. we know that. to give them three shots at that, a felony dui, as a law- enforcement enforcement officer i think that is a no go. these folks who are on probation, to get on the probationary status, if i understand this correctly, they get three misdemeanor criminal convictions that are not traffic offenses and then once they get on the probation we continue to let them get criminal convictions if i understand them correctly. i know we are redefining a lot of words here, but if that is the case i think we redefine probation as well. i cannot understand why someone committed a federal crime by

entering united states illegally. it is a crime. not just an administrative offense. we give them probation for that and now we allow them to continue to break our nations criminal laws and to stay in the united states? i just do not understand it. i apologize. i wish i could give you a better answer, but we are struggling to sort through this thing right now. >> it is only 844 pages. thank you. >> [no audio] >> yes, sir. >> people would not be deported. >> thank you. i want to commend you to have done in utah. that has provided a blueprint and a model for a lots of arizona who have been looking for a rational humane approach to this problem.

thank you for helping lead the way there. would you agree with those in the last panel that said they would define amnesty as any -- anything that allows anybody who has crossed the border illegally to stay under any form, whether it is rpi status or anything else. is that what constitutes amnesty? >> anytime you set aside the rule of law and give someone the chance to some other special thing, whether they pay a fine or something, that would be amnesty. that doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea, but i do believe in truth in advertising. >> do you agree with that? aresty, regardless or they paying a fine toward legal status? toin my statement, i prefer it as legal status, i did not use the word amnesty. but if you're going to put me to it, i guess i would say i do

believe that once you allow that person to stay in the united states after they have come here in the violation of the law, i would believe that most americans would think that would be an amnesty. thank you. >> your organization has a lots of big grassroots presence around the country. -- mr. norquist. i suppose into have taken a public role here on this that you have heard from them. what are you hearing? >> people understand the system we have is roped in. -- is broken. you have the number of high tech programs we need to. we don't have a guest worker program 92. border. we need to have protection to know who is in the country and people understand that if people have to go through paying fines, back taxes, that is not amnesty or not nothing. a lots of money. some people may be so rich they think a couple thousand dollars is nothing, but it is not for

most people. with earned legal status, you see it in the center-right movement. community,usiness the small businesses in particular, this is not a fortune 500 issue. farmers and dairymen and ranchers around the country have been explaining that they need this. you see this with the various communities. all of the areas communities of faith are focused on this and saying that we need to move forward on this. from the center-right perspective in terms of the reagan republicans and conservatives, absolutely, yes. it is very powerful. the arguments against it are malice in the left and do not carry a lots of weight with reagan republicans. what are the things i used in my testimony with the nine mins of -- nine myths of immigration, this is back in the 1980 posturing reagan's presidency.

it walks through all the things you hear from people who did not like the irish and did not like the jews and did not like the asians and all the previous groups. now we are told this new group is going to be a problem coming into the country. every time we have been through this, whether they are criminals or all go on welfare or don't want to work, we have found that not to be the case. the heritage foundation did a good study the reagan years. another one in 2006 which made the case that, of course, immigration and more immigration makes us a richer poor country and helps out on questions of deficits and economic growth. from a center-right perspective and one of the groups with talk to in law enforcement as you go state to state, the austin chief of police is a big

advocate of comprehensive -- when we were in indianapolis, same thing. we always talk to our police officers and to the guys with badges as well as the business d helps out community and religious community. thank you and thank you mr. chairman. >> i will do the last around. i know it has been a long day for the witnesses. when the fbi was investigating travel, he did not find his trip to russia. they typed in his name incorrectly. , the airline. our bill requires that travel exit data be base by swiping the passport. we are making sure it is machine-readable on exit. dhs says this would have helped the fbi in this case. do you agree? absolutely. >> good. one example of many where we are tightening things up. that would have been relevant. now, i mentioned this to your

previous witness from your group. i guess you are the second witness. you folks are not only against illegal immigration, but you are for producing -- you want reduce the amount of illegal immigration and so do we. we go to great pains to try to do that, but you want to reduce illegal immigration. is that correct? >> yes. a more moderate pace of immigration. >> you have a those economic levels? what do you think of the high- tech thesis that we have proposed? are you against that part of our proposal? >> i think -- >> you are against it? >> no, >> you can let in high- skilled workers without fear of consequence.

there might be other concerns. are you displacing americans. are you making american business increasingly different. there are a lots of negatives. you don't have to worry about fiscal consequences. >> you saw that we do make provisions in the that they have to hire americans first. let me ask you. he says he is having trouble going through it. , mr. crane. it is a long and complicated bill. it has been online for six days and this will be on my for three -- on line 43 or four weeks before we mark up. that is unusual for a complicated bill to be out there and available for as long as it is. from what you have seen, if you had to say you support or do not support the sections of our proposal, let me ask you this -- would you support giving a green card to any foreigner who graduates, gets an ma or phd in spam and an american university? in stem in an american

university? >> it is about 5000 6000 people a year. we can certainly do that. ma is a very different thing. phd is rigorous and specialize. >> so you will do it for the hd's. >> ok. there is one part of the bill we agree on. but for ma's -- you do not agreeit is very different. >> just in stem. science, technology. people are just issuing an ma exclusively's approval can get a visa. do not think that would make sense. for ph.d.'s, give them all green cards. >> i think we have gone over time. i have one mins left. do you wanted? >> if we could have one more round. >> we have not had around and she has to be gone.

-- the chair has to be gone. we said we would finish at 5:00. i will give you one more question. lex and you can submit -- and in writing which have to be answered one week later. questions have to be submitted by 5:00 wednesday. go ahead. >> what specific border security measures does this bill require in the non--high risk sectors. reviewve struggled to the bill in that level of detail. the other six sectors, what i understand is, why do they have to obtain an effectiveness rate? if we are only focusing himon appre -- only focusing on apprehensions?

i added that in. what happens to the border patrol work on contraband like weapons and drugs? does that roll back and become a non-priority? i do not understand why we do not have it as a brought up race. -- a brought up race -- broad base. every sector can be high risk. that shift can only happen between sectors on an annual basis. smugglers move every few weeks. >> thank you very much. >>and we not just add new responsibilities, but $3.5 billion for personnel detection equipment. the drones, you name it, which is a lot. senator mccain and i added $600

million to border in 2010. the overall effectiveness rate went up from 68% to 82%. if you conclude the defense money that senator rubio put in the bill, that is $4.5 billion. most experts think you will get a higher effective rate. we are not just giving new responsibilities. we are giving them new personnel, new equipment, things like that. with that, i want to thank my colleagues for staying. i think my witnesses. it has been a long day. i want to thank the chairman. this is been a aero, extensive hearing. all different points of view have been spoken about. secretary napolitano will be here. -- tomorrow. the panelists will have one week to answer your questions in writing, long before we go to mark up in early may.

with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] janet napolitano testifies before the senate judiciary committee today at 9:30 a.m.. here on c-span. today, richard corddray to testify as before the senate banking committee. he will deliver his semi-annual report to congress and operations at the bureau. see it live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3. coming crop on the next "washington journal" the

american civil liberties union will discuss the legal definition and history of the term "enemy combatant." examines thee military court martial system which prosecutes about 5000 members annually. atshington journal" live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. meant to help a visitor re-live first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decisionmaking process that i went through as president. we hope the museum inspires people to serve, what to serve their community or their country in some light. we did not want to be a school. tank.nt to be a do - don't know if there is a lesson

there. i know that we decided to go in a different direction apart from the museum with the component of power -- of which programs would emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library and museum from southern methodist university in dallas, live thursday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3. at 6:20 andlier cspan for a conversation with the former first couple. lindsayca g and olivia our second prize winners. their message to the president focuses on health care reform. h ♪ >> in america, there are many

people who did not have access to health care and are not able to receive the benefits that come with it. president obama is aiming to change is with the affordable care act, more commonly known as obama care. >> the affordable care act is a fully encompassing health care act intended to provide insurance for millions of people who are not insured in america. obama as health care reform plan imposes new regulations on medical insurance companies that prevent them from dropping sick clients with pre- existing conditions. requires all americans to have health insurance or pay taxes. starting in 2014 with an individual mandates. >> another big part of obama care is to expand access to affordable health care coverage. many people who aren't -- were not covered by health care because he did their employer did not cover it or it was too expensive.

>> people will believe law is unfair and unconstitutional believes everyone should have health care and have an equal opportunity to access health care. they believe the reform allure the cost of health insurance and greatly improve the economy. >> the industry in general feels that people need access to these products. they save lives, they keep people healthy and out of more expensive term -- kinds of care like hospitals or out of a physician's office. >> it allows for younger people theire on -- to stay on parents' health care longer. to be able to be on their parents' insurance to they get a job that may offer as it. >> i am a strong supporter of the affordable care act. the does all the things i just

mentioned. it provides more patient protection. it provides more affordable health care to more people. i believe it will begin to break down the overall cost of health care. and it provides people who are medicare seniors with additional benefits. to get free preventative care, services which we want to encourage because they want people to catch their diseases early and it provides seniors more help in paying for their insurance drugs. >> those who are opposed to the aw approve of the government controlling their health care. >> why is the bill so in need of repealed? it will have a devastating impact on the american economy, on fiscal policy, on the quality of american health care, and on

and help the political discourse in the united states. -- and on the healthy political discourse in the united states. >> there is a lot around and a reform that could help achieve better care at lower cost. the challenge is that these are not automatic and they will lobby easy to implement. it will take some real changes in medicare processes and some changes in how the rest of the health-care system interact with medicare. >> there was deep concern that would ultimately mean rationing health care to americans, giving them less than they pay for, perhaps even starting death paddles. panels. we know now that is patently false. it gives rise to important

question. how do we maintain health care costs in this country? >> the cost of medicare and medicaid is skyrocketing. it is clearly not going to be sustainable. it is questionable whether obama care has provided the solution to the fundamental cost of health care. >> men 88 politicians have proposed new ideas to replace obama care. governor mitt romney rights -- we need a free market, a federal approach to affordable health insurance available to every american. >> recently, the supreme court upheld the affordable care act, stating that the federal government did have the power to tax those without health insurance. danger when the

federal level text a position where they can tell someone whether they purchase a product or service. where does this stop? >> the opponents of the affordable care act are arguing that congress did not have authority to pass the affordable care act. one of the arguments that you may have frequently heard was that if congress can force you to purchase health insurance, which is what the individual mandate requires, congress can force you to buy anything, even broccoli. >> in the next term of office for president obama,, how you think the president should address obama care? >> there is still a lot of things that need to be put into place.

>> the biggest challenge is keeping the peace is in tact overtime. that is their challenge. >> health care costs keep growing and growing. part of that is there are always new procedures being invented and new drugs and that is great on one hand because that helps cure diseases, but if we cannot afford it and there are so many people who are retirement age and receiving benefits, at some point, you have to make choices about how we can curb those costs. >> we need to fully implement obama care. there are many really important pieces that need to come into

effect. i think we should focus on implementing the existing law in a way that accomplishes its purpose. >> how we equalize costs and minimize costs to employers and hospitals and ultimately the patients and the government and make people feel safe in their quality of health? that is the challenge for president obama this last term in office. >> because of the controversy and debate, the affordable care act is one of the most important issues president obama should address in his next term. we desperately need to reform our current health care system. by reforming the health-care system to something we can agree on, we can improve the economy and benefit all americans, even the ones who cannot currently afford health care. congratulations >> to all the winners in this year's studentcam petition. to see more winning videos, go to studentcam.org. nextashington journal"is

at 9:30, janet napolitano testifies about immigration policy in homeland security. at noon, eastern, the u.s. house returns for legislative business. >> the museum is meant to help a visitor re-live first eight years of the 21st century. the museum and explains the decisionmaking process that i went through as president. we hope the museum inspires people to serve, they want to serve their community or their country, in some way. we did not want to be a school. we want to be a do-tag. i don't know if there is a lesson there. decided to go in a different direction apart from the museum with a component of

work -- from which programs will emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library and museum from southern methodist university in dallas, live thursday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3. earlier for a conversation with the former first couple. > today, richard cordray testifies before the senate banking committee. he will deliver his semi-annual report to congress operations at the bureau. c.l. live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3. we will discuss the legal definition and history of the term "enemy combatant." at 8:30 eastern,